Cristina Carmody Tilley, ‘The Tort of Outrage and Some Objectivity about Subjectivity’

ABSTRACT
The tort of outrage has been sidelined in recent decades by judges and academics who question its legitimacy. This Article is an attempt to move outrage from the margins to the center of American tort law. It begins by unearthing the complex intellectual history that produced judicial skepticism about this tort. The Legal Realists who ‘invented’ outrage made a strategic decision to condition liability on the ‘outrageousness’ of behavior rather than to identify discrete acts as wrongful. This doctrinal indeterminacy was necessary to quell corporate opposition to the tort. Ultimately, however, it has led modern courts and scholars to label outrage as ‘inherently subjective’ and therefore ‘disfavored’.

The Article challenges this conventional view by proposing a scientific basis for distinguishing ordinary aggression from its outrageous counterpart. Neuroscience literature suggests that threats levelled with awareness of a target’s inability to follow through on the biologically reflexive fight or flight response produce physiologically maladaptive distress. In contrast, threats to which a target can freely respond produce benign, adaptive, stress. Consequently, defendant aggression is ‘outrageous’ when it exploits a plaintiff’s known inability to execute a prosocial response. This science-based model of ‘outrageousness’ provides a neutral baseline against which to evaluate the critique that the tort necessarily requires subjective evaluations of defendant behavior. When plaintiff paralysis results from external dynamics the defendant recognized and exploited, jurors need not assign priority to either the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s worldview to find a wrong. But when plaintiff paralysis results from internal feelings of powerlessness that may stem from race or gender experience, jurors must credit the plaintiff’s experience and disregard the defendant’s apparent ignorance of it in order to find a wrong, a process that appears to subjectively prioritize one worldview over another. So whether liability is objective or subjective in a given case turns on whether the impediment to plaintiff action was external or internal.

In its concluding section, the Article undertakes an empirical examination of jury verdicts to determine the relative frequency of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ liability assignments. It finds that juries are most likely to assign liability in situations where plaintiff paralysis arose from external, objectively observable impediments recognized by defendants. In other words, outrage liability typically stigmatizes behavior that is objectively understood by both the defendant and the community at large to be antisocial. That said, juries occasionally assign liability where a woman or a person of color felt paralyzed by perceived powerlessness the defendant may not have appreciated. The Article ultimately suggests that this small but persistent segment of ‘subjective’ verdicts – far from demonstrating the tort’s illegitimacy – highlights the social power of private injury law.

Conference on Empirical Legal Studies: University of Oslo, 11-12 June 2020

Due to the spread of COVID-19 and widespread introduction of restrictions on movement and assembly, the programme committee has, with deep regret, decided to postpone the conference in Oslo until 9-10 June 2022 … (more)

The Role of the Law of Unjust Enrichment in Asia: Online Conference, CUHK Graduate Law Center, Central, Hong Kong, 26 June 2020

The law of unjust enrichment is more or less recognized in all modern jurisdictions. The name suggests that nobody should enrich herself at the expense of another party. Details of even very fundamental aspects of the law of unjust enrichment are, however, highly disputed everywhere … (more)

IP Researchers Europe Conference: Geneva, 26-27 June 2020

Because of the COVID-19 health crisis, we have unfortunately decided that the safest course of action is to cancel IPRE 2020, which was planned for June 2020. We will organize the next edition of IPRE in late June 2021 … (more)

The 12th ISHTIP Annual Workshop, scheduled for 13-17 July at Bournemouth University, has been postponed to 2021 due to coronavirus pandemic … (more)

Obligations X: Harvard Law School, 14-17 July 2020

In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, Obligations X, currently scheduled for July 14-17, must be postponed. Our fond hope is that we will be able to hold the conference, more or less with its current line-up of speakers, panels, and papers, in the summer of 2021. However, we cannot yet say for certain whether that timing will work … (more)

If law is centred on human action and practices, key questions concerning rationality and practical reason in law arise. How shall we formulate a sound conception of practical reason for law? What is the correct understanding of the structure of rationality for law and how it differs from the rationality of other human practices? … (more)

SLS Annual Conference: Exeter, 1-4 September 2020

After careful consideration, and in light of the ongoing Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, we have taken the decision to host the 111th Annual Conference of the Society of Legal Scholars virtually … (more)

Small Claims Dispute Resolution for Consumers – A European Approach: Brussels, 10 September 2020

The Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II and Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) are organising the final conference of the Small Claims Analysis Net (SCAN) project on the theme of Small Claims Dispute Resolution for Consumers (SCDRC 2020) … (more, call for papers)

We are pleased to invite submissions that aim to further comparative insight and learning on the ways in which different legal systems have grappled with particular public law and private law aspects of the pandemic … (more, call for papers)

The Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (CELS) meetings will not be held in 2020 … (more)

The Future of the Commercial Contract in Scholarship and Law Reform: Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, London, 16 October 2020

The 2020 conference explores topics in commercial contract law with a focus on sustainability, not only to combat climate change by contracts to promote the use of green energies but by supporting an ethical approach to supply chains … (more, call for papers)

This conference will bring together academics and legal practitioners to discuss recent developments relating to commercial contracts. Papers will be distributed before the conference, and the discussion started by an expert commentator … (more)

Paradigmatic Shifts in the History of Private Law (25th Ius Commune Workshop): Maastricht University, 26-27 November 2020

The workshops on ‘Comparative Legal History – Ius Commune in the Making’ aim to reveal and understand the nature and effects of various legal formants in the development of law. Indeed, forces of legal formants are too often lost or hidden beneath a superficies of commonalities … (more, call for papers)

Conference on Empirical Legal studies (CELSE): University of Oslo, 9-10 June 2022

The planned CELS-Europe 2022 conference will be held at the University of Oslo. A new call for papers will be announced in June 2021. The papers submitted for CELS-Europe 2020 can be considered afresh but new papers must be submitted if the current paper is published … (more)

Intermediaries play an important role in many aspects of commercial law. Yet there has been little focussed attention upon intermediaries as a crucial category of actors. The aim of this conference is to consider current issues concerning intermediaries from a number of different angles, adopting a range of methodological approaches … (more, call for papers)